Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Is the Bible Immoral? Part 3b: Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

I
hadn't intended to write another post on this series. In my last
post on this subject, I explained that it would take too much time to
address every passage in the Bible that discusses slavery – not
that there are a lot of them, by the way. However, I can see now
that there are a few other points that need addressing.

First,
there is the irony that if there really is no God, then the critics
have no moral grounds to say the Bible is “wrong” about slavery.
If there is no transcendent, objective standard of morality, then
there is no weight in the critic's claim that our modern attitude of
slavery is more “correct” than the attitudes held by ancient
slaveholders. Critics who use slavery to attack the Bible are
relying on a general sense of outrage over the word “slavery” to
give their argument any credibility. Therefore, they invariably want
to equate the type of slavery in the Bible with the type of slavery
we once had in the US.

If
you do a Google image search for “slavery Bible,” you'll get
hundreds of images showing mostly dark skinned people chained,
whipped, and tortured. Completely absent from the criticisms are
Scripture references supporting the things the critics portray.
There is no passage in the Bible, for example, that talks about
putting slaves in chains. Why, then, are there so many pictures of
blacks in chains with Bible verses written beneath them? Whether
it's done out of ignorance or intentional deceit, it doesn't matter.
It's a straw man caricature of what the Bible teaches.

Just
as I said in my last post, slaves in the ancient world were a
socioeconomic class. They were chronically poor or indebted people
who entered indentured servitude because they could either not take
care of themselves or they could not repay their debts. This type of
indentured service was practiced in many places in the world. The
slavery discussed in the Bible not only didn't resemble the slavery
once experienced in the South, it wasn't really even like the slavery
practiced in contemporary nations.

Usually,
entering into this kind of servitude was a lifelong commitment. If
the master died, the slave would continue in the service of the
master's family. This was also true of foreign slaves living in
Israel. Jews, on the other hand, were required to forgive the debts
of other Jews every 7 years; this included freeing Jewish servants.
In Leviticus 25:46, the admonition to not treat their fellow
Israelites “ruthlessly” cannot be interpreted as a license to
beat foreign born slaves. It precisely meant the Jews could not
exclude indentured service from the debts forgiven. By the way, even
freed Jewish slaves could voluntarily remain in their master's employ
permanently. This is really the only difference between servants
taken from among Jews and servants taken from other nations.

Some
key differences between the kind of service detailed in the Bible and
the cruel slavery seen in other parts of the world are as follows:

People
could not be kidnapped and sold into slavery against their will.
Exodus 21:16.

Slaves
who ran away could not be forced to return to their masters.
Deuteronomy 23:15-16.

Slaves
were required to be given a Sabbath day of no work, just like free
men. Exodus 20:10.

If
a master kills a slave, he is guilty of murder. Exodus 21:20.

If
a master permanently injures a slave, such as knocking out a tooth,
he must free the slave. Exodus 21:26-27.

Nowhere
in the Bible are masters commanded or even allowed to chain, torture,
and kill their servants. Nowhere! Yet that is exactly the false
impression critics want to portray when they show dark skinned people
in chains. When asked to cite specific verses where such practices
are allowed, critics really can only resort to one verse, Exodus
21:20-21:

“If
a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his
hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two,
no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.”

The
verse is cited to make it sound like it's OK to beat a slave as long
as he doesn't die immediately; if he dies later, it's fine. This is
another example of taking a passage out of context. The passage
isn't talking about murder but about what happens if you injure a man
but he doesn't die. In verses 18-19, the two verses immediately
prior to the above verses, the Bible proscribes exactly the same
punishment for fights between free men. The only difference is that
if you strike a free man and he doesn't die immediately, but only
remains in bed for a while, he must be compensated for the time he
was injured. A slave that is struck but doesn't die immediately
doesn't have to be compensated for the time he was injured because
his work belongs to his master anyway!

The
idea of permanent servitude still will sound strange to a lot of
modern readers. I've tried comparing it to being a squire or vassal
– words that are less emotionally charged – but even these types
of service don't exist anymore. It's just hard for some people to
think of a being a “slave” as anything less than repulsive. They
can't imagine being a slave as being a kind of job. They can't
imagine a person wanting to be a slave. It might help if you think
of the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). A man's son
asked for his father for his inheritance now. He took the money and
went into a foreign land where he squandered it all. When the money
was gone, he began to starve and considered returning to his father
as a slave. Read the boy's thoughts (Luke 15:14-20):

After
he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole
country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself
out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed
pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were
eating, but no one gave him anything. When he came to his senses, he
said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare,
and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my
father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and
against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me
like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his
father

2 comments:

... if there really is no God, then the critics have no moral grounds to say the Bible is “wrong” about slavery.

There are, of course, people who disagree on that point, holding that the "expanding circle of concern" (treating strangers and non-kin the same way we treat members of our own clan and tribe) is a logical and self-evident basis for morality, without concern for any superhuman sanction for that morality. But assume these thinkers are wrong: the point is that what you now believe about slavery differs from what the Bible says, and on this point, you hold that your views are superior to the actual teachings of the Bible (so that you tend to "spin" the Biblical teachings to make them more compliant with your own ethics).

If you do a Google image search for “slavery Bible,” you'll get hundreds of images showing mostly dark skinned people chained, whipped, and tortured.

If you do an image search on that string, you get back pictures from articles on slavery (and for the most part in the early modern world and the United States in particular) that mention the Bible; for the most part, they're not really articles on what the Bible says about slavery, or about slavery in biblical times.

Just as I said in my last post, slaves in the ancient world were a socioeconomic class.

In the Roman Empire (the background for the New Testament's teaching on slavery), they were generally prisoners of war (including civilian women and children) or descendants of such prisoners. And again, this was the origin of slaves in much of the world, along with enslavement for debts or for various crimes. Again, one must suppose that the non-Israelite slaves that the Israelites were permitted to buy as permanent, inheritable chattels were probably not voluntarily undertaking this role to pay off debts, and in many cases would have been enslaved by military action.

In Leviticus 25:46, the admonition to not treat their fellow Israelites “ruthlessly” cannot be interpreted as a license to beat foreign born slaves. It precisely meant the Jews could not exclude indentured service from the debts forgiven.

I take your point. However, the license to beat (non-fatally) foreign-born slaves (and possibly domestic indentured servants) is Leviticus 21:21.

Slaves were required to be given a Sabbath day of no work, just like free men.

You said, “There are, of course, people who disagree on that point, holding that the "expanding circle of concern" (treating strangers and non-kin the same way we treat members of our own clan and tribe) is a logical and self-evident basis for morality, without concern for any superhuman sanction for that morality.”

In that philosophy, “good” means whatever produces a beneficial outcome and “bad” means whatever produces a less than beneficial outcome. It has nothing to do with morality. If heard of an analogy of a chess game: a move might be a “bad” move in that it will cause the player to lose but a bad move isn't “evil.”

You said, “But assume these thinkers are wrong: the point is that what you now believe about slavery differs from what the Bible says, and on this point, you hold that your views are superior to the actual teachings of the Bible (so that you tend to "spin" the Biblical teachings to make them more compliant with your own ethics).”

There are some parts of the Bible that tell us how to worship God. The business arrangement of indentured servitude is a civil code that has nothing to do with worship. The Bible regulates slavery without endorsing it. Look at similar types of Laws: What happens if a cow I owned gores a man? What happens if I dig a pit and a neighbor's cow falls in it? What happens if I wake up one morning and a cow I own has died – can I eat it? There are all these Laws that regulate owning cows and my opinion of the business decision to own cows has nothing to do with my opinion of the Bible.

You said, “If you do an image search on that string, you get back pictures from articles on slavery”

I should have been more clear. If you search for “slavery Bible” in Google Images, you'll get the hundreds of pictures like I mentioned. The picture I included in my post is simply a screen shot I saved from my own laptop after having searched that phrase.

You said, “In the Roman Empire (the background for the New Testament's teaching on slavery), they were generally prisoners of war (including civilian women and children) or descendants of such prisoners. And again, this was the origin of slaves in much of the world, along with enslavement for debts or for various crimes. Again, one must suppose that the non-Israelite slaves that the Israelites were permitted to buy as permanent, inheritable chattels were probably not voluntarily undertaking this role to pay off debts, and in many cases would have been enslaved by military action.”

I've already pointed out that the Bible specifically forbids kidnapping a man and forcing him into slavery so I'm not going to assume the foreign-purchased slaves were most likely involuntary. But if I assumed they were, I point out to you again that the Law also forbids forcing a runaway slave to return to his master. A servant in Israel was treated more like a member of one's family; ill treated slaves were more likely to run away and would be guaranteed safe harbor in any town in Israel.

RKBentley

About me

I'm a husband, a father, and a Christian. Being a Christian is not something I do on Sundays but rather it is who I am. My faith influences everything I do. Christians are commanded to always be ready to give an answer – a reason for the hope that is in us. I take that command seriously. Psalm 19:7 says that the testimony of the LORD is sure. If we base all of our thinking on the Bible, we can't go wrong. I started this blog to encourage other Christians and challenge critics on a variety of issues. Whether you agree or disagree with me, you're welcome here. Please follow me on Twitter and friend me on FaceBook! God bless!!